Lifetime SORNA registration and GPS monitoring was reasonable here because defendant\u2019s victim was under 13. People v. Vandermel, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 4464 (May 28, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On a successor habeas: \u201cHere, the ground Mack raises in his instant application was raised in his original \u00a7 2254 petition and thus is barred by \u00a7 2244(b)(1)’s same-claims bar. 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2244(b)(1). In his application, Mack raises the same ground as his original \u00a7 2254 petition: his convictions were unconstitutional and he is actually innocent because probable cause for his arrest warrant was supported by text messages that did not exist, and his convictions thus should be vacated since he would not have pleaded guilty but for the perjured testimony in the warrant. \u2026 To the extent that he has made new arguments in his application pertaining to this claim, that is insufficient to create a new claim. \u2026 Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider Mack’s application. \u2026\u201d In re Mack, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 15359 (11th Cir. May 28, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
While the traffic ticket for tinting was being written, a nearby officer with a drug dog showed up for a sniff, and this didn\u2019t extend the stop. Moss v. State, 2026 Ga. App. LEXIS 260 (May 29, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Lifetime SORNA registration and GPS monitoring was reasonable here because defendant\u2019s victim was under 13. People v. Vandermel, 2026 Mich. App. LEXIS 4464 (May 28, 2026).* On a successor habeas: \u201cHere, the ground Mack raises in his instant application was … Continue reading